You know, Iains, it is posts like that which make people decide there is no value in engaging with you. I do so because it think it is valuable to know other peoples views, but there does come a point where the return on investment is too low to bother.

You say both parties campaigned for Brexit.

The Tories campaigned for a Brexit where having a customs partnership was ruled out.

Labour campaigned for a Brexit where a customs partnership was essential.

To suggest they are the same is on the level as claiming 'dead' and 'alive' are the same because they both contain an E and an A.

Add in the repeated dodging of the point I repeated in bold for your convenience and throw in some hint that violence might be acceptable and I find myself drawn to the group who don't respond at all.

As with Keith, it is your hands to decide if you want to raise things to discuss, or are only interested in scoring points in a competition where you are the sole entrant.

The extremists are those that refuse to recognise the legitimacy of the democratic vote. This was by referendum An overwhelming vote for article 50 A general election with both main parties having brexit as a major part of their manifesto.

Well we have had veiled threats of violence from Farage and others, and they don't impress or scare me. Our grandparents faced down Mosley's thugs, and our parents faced down Powell's, are our generation goint to be the once to cave in to threats of violence from brexit extremists?

It amazes me how people are still falling this 'will of the people' bollocks. 17 million people voted to leave Europe. There are 66 Million in the UK. Less than 1/3 voted to leave. Of the remaining 2/3, 16 million voted to stay. So that leaves over a 1/3 of the 'people' who's will is entirely unknown. How can this be the will of the people?

That is a really interesting possibility, Backwoodsman. It is being suggested that the justification for bringing it back is that Cox's advice is changed because of the Vienna Convention. Now, it is true that is not in his written advice. But it was raised in the debate and his advice on the matter sought and given. So the claim the advice has changed is on very shaky ground indeed. Also that clause of Vienna Convention concerns fundamental changes in the parties concerned. A change of Prime Minister is not such a fundamental change. A change of governing party is not such a fundamental change. A complete collapse of the finances of the UK would be, but presumably those seeking to invoke it do not think that is likely. So this a fig-leaf of an excuse, not a genuine one.

Now, if Teresa May agreed to change her red lines and adopted a more consensual approach, that would be an actual change to the deal, so it could be brought back without doubt.

Some ERG members have said they would vote for the deal on condition May resigns. That takes us into, as far as I know, other uncharted constitutional waters. There is a convention that no parliament can bind its successor, so it cannot pas a law directly restricting its successors actions. It is not clear if that applies to Prime Ministers. For example, if May agreed to adopt some of Labour's ideas, and that so-amended deal was passed with those changes to the parts of the agreement that are *not legally binding*, to what extend would a PM Boris be bound to follow them? I don't think anyone knows.

A suggestion this morning that Bercow might use the ancient rule that a Motion may not be voted on more than once during a session to prevent May's agreement being debated and voted on for a third time.

Fingers crossed. And maybe then we will see the complete lunacy of BrexShit kicked out for good.

But less pleasing is that some Brexiteers including Ian Duncan Smith are reported to have been trying to persuade Hungary and others to veto any request to the EU for an extension. So much for hating how Brussels can overrule the UK Parliament.

A total misunderstanding of what is at stake: As things stand we crash out on the 29th of this month.Regardless of what Parliament may vote in the meantime, only a changer in the law can negate this. There is not sufficient time to frame the required legislation,debate it in both houses and obtain Royal Assent. That is the reality. An extension beyond the date of the European elections means the UK quota of MEPs must be elected.(This could be quite entertaining as the seats have already been re-allocated.) More significantly, an extension gives the remainiacs more time to plot and plan their treasonous betrayal of the democratic will of the people.

I am pleased to see the Malthouse compromise has been rejected by even more than May's deal. Given the EU was clear about how insane we would be to vote for somwthing rej3cred so often in the negotiations, it is one bright spot in the hookah.

But less pleasing is that some Brexiteers including Ian Duncan Smith are reported to have been trying to persuade Hungary and others to veto any request to the EU for an extension. So much for hating how Brussels can overrule the UK Parliament.

Perhaps he could explain what the majority vote of 17,410,742 people voted for in the referendum then?

17.4 etc voted for A Brexit, But did they vote for THIS Brexit, which is what the phrase you are commenting on says? No one at all knows: neither you, nor I, nor any of the leave campaigners, nor Parliament. In fact, it is highly likely that even at the time they were voting with different understandings of Brexit.

In the faint hope of warding off Nigel, I read 'Nobody wants this Brexit' in the common, ordinary, everyday sense of the phrase. That is, I am sure out of the 17.4million there will be a few who did, but the numbers are dwarfed by the rest.

Oops, sorry, SPB, I misread your point about blue badges so my comment about my mum is irrelevant. However, when I looked into it a while back I thought I found that the blue badge scheme has a reciprocal agreement across the EU.

EU needs to ... pull their fingers out and come up with a deal that...

I am afraid not: the EU does not have to come up with anything. The UK has to come up with something that is at least good enough to convince the EU it merits an extension. I agree with you the proposed deal should protect those rights, but it is up to the UK to say that.

EU needs to forget about the self-serving Tory party politics which were responsible for the referendum, and pull their fingers out and come up with a deal that protects all the rights of UK pro-Europeans.

No, nor do the votes tomorrow or the day after mean remain. It is, perhaps, a step in that direction, but equally it could be a step towards the no-deal brink if Parliament fritters away the few days left on irrelevancies or agreeing things that the EU cannot.

In answer to May's speech saying she would be holding the votes on Wednesday and Thursday, Corbyn said he would be bringing the previously rejected Labour version of Brexit back to the house. Even if the house were to accept it, which is very doubtful, the question arises whether the EU will be prepared to enter another long period of negotiation. As I have said before, I don't find red unicorns any more believable than blue ones. There are things in the Labour proposal that will be as objectionable to the EU as the ones from the Tories.

I think the probability is we will need more than this lets-talk-about-something-else approach to stop a no deal.

Indeed he did. I know a few people in real life who you can't have a proper conversation with because they're not listening to you. Instead, they're thinking of the next "clever" thing to say. It's not very grown-up, is it?

"I fink you mean fox dear boy. Having your sheepdogs feast on lamb is a proven unsuccessful business model. But finance is hardly your strong point, having suckled on the public teat all your life. Twould seem for all your years in the countryside you have learnt precious little."

And I think, silly boy, you completely misunderstood Steve's post. Not 'arf as clever as you try to pretend you are, are you?

"Now you have clarified who you were insulting, you may perhaps find a reckoning in a more public forum forthcoming."

Eleven minutes later from the same poster:

From: Iains - PM Date: 10 Mar 19 - 12:26 PM

"Backward man you are a tad behind the curve."

And then:

"Not only besandled and besotted but also oblivious"

And just now:

"I fink you mean fox dear boy. Having your sheepdogs feast on lamb is a proven unsuccessful business model. But finance is hardly your strong point, having suckled on the public teat all your life. Twould seem for all your years in the countryside you have learnt precious little."

I fink you mean fox dear boy. Having your sheepdogs feast on lamb is a proven unsuccessful business model. But finance is hardly your strong point, having suckled on the public teat all your life. Twould seem for all your years in the countryside you have learnt precious little.

I know there's nothing even remotely amusing about all this, but I loved this one, from a Comments section under a Guardian article:

"By the way, if anyone is under the misapprehension that Trump is going to help Britain with a favorable trade deal after Brexit, they've got another thing coming. When the wolf sees a lamb straying from the herd, he's not going to channel his inner Border Collie. He sees dinner."

You mean apart from the fact a port is completely different in scale to a 499km border, that all the French system achieves is to separate the traffic into red and green channels where the red have to be checked, that building such infrastructure as the channels is expressly prohibited by the withdrawal agreement and that the police of Ireland have expressed serious security concerns about any attempt to have such infrastructure? Give me a minute and I will think of something.

As any self-respecting Brexit pundit will be more than happy to remind us, smart borders featuring mythological things like remote customs declarations and automated number plate checking are simply “unicorns” which aren’t likely to be possible for hundreds, if not thousands of years. They certainly won’t be suitable for any post-Brexit border crossings…

Which is why French Customs have just unveiled a “smart border” – an “innovative technological solution” which will be implemented on 29 March 2019 “at all points of entry/exit to/from the Calais region and at border points from Channel-North Sea to maintain smooth circulation of your goods.”

I am waiting for May to make a gaurantee that if EU 27 denies fredom of movement to a single UK national that this will be treated as a major diplomatic incident. If not then May, and everyone who voted for her party is a racist.

Stanron, all the others Brexiteers have refused repeatedly to respond to any of my questions regarding if the UK will be as well off, if not better off, post Brexit.

Almost every report from every source to date has been negative. The Banking, Insurance and Finance Industries are setting up offices overseas, the car industry is in disarray, multiply other industries are moving at least some of their operations into the Eurozone and even arch Brexiteer Rees Mogg has opened on office of his Somerset Investment company in Dublin.

I think that there are some leavers who are not stupid or dangerously stupid, but just dangerous, because they see brexit as an opportunity for personal financial gain at the expense of the rest of us. Such as hedge fund managers shorting the British economy.